Educational Psychologist

ISSN: 0046-1520 (Print) 1532-6985 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hedp20

Toward a Script Theory of Guidance in Computer-

Supported Collaborative Learning

Frank Fischer , Ingo Kollar , Karsten Stegmann & Christof Wecker

To cite this article: Frank Fischer , Ingo Kollar , Karsten Stegmann & Christof Wecker
(2013) Toward a Script Theory of Guidance in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
Educational Psychologist, 48:1, 56-66, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2012.748005

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.748005

Division 15, American Psychological

Association

Published online: 18 Jan 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3944

View related articles

Citing articles: 77 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hedp20

Download by: [190.183.60.78] Date: 06 January 2017, At: 17:52

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 48(1), 5666, 2013
Copyright 
C Division 15, American Psychological Association
ISSN: 0046-1520 print / 1532-6985 online
DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2012.748005

Toward a Script Theory of Guidance

in Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning
Frank Fischer, Ingo Kollar, Karsten Stegmann, and Christof Wecker
Department of Psychology
Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich

This article presents an outline of a script theory of guidance for computer-supported collab-
orative learning (CSCL). With its 4 types of components of internal and external scripts (play,
scene, role, and scriptlet) and 7 principles, this theory addresses the question of how CSCL
practices are shaped by dynamically reconfigured internal collaboration scripts of the partic-
ipating learners. Furthermore, it explains how internal collaboration scripts develop through
participation in CSCL practices. It emphasizes the importance of active application of subject
matter knowledge in CSCL practices, and it prioritizes transactive over nontransactive forms
of knowledge application in order to facilitate learning. Further, the theory explains how ex-
ternal collaboration scripts modify CSCL practices and how they influence the development of
internal collaboration scripts. The principles specify an optimal scaffolding level for external
collaboration scripts and allow for the formulation of hypotheses about the fading of exter-
nal collaboration scripts. Finally, the article points toward conceptual challenges and future
research questions.

The reasons for using collaborative learning as a mode of
instruction are manifold. From a cognitive perspective (e.g.,
King, 1997), performing activities that seem to occur natu-
rally in collaborative learning situations, such as giving ex-
planations or asking questions, are assumed to change partic-
ipants cognitive structures. Approaches based on sociocul-
tural theory suggest that through participation in collabora-
tive learning, individuals can gradually internalize collabora-
tive practices as collaboration skills and cognitive strategies
that may be useful in other settings as well (e.g., Kolodner,
2007). However, as research on collaborative learning has
repeatedly shown, learners typically do not engage in these
high-level collaboration processes without guidance (e.g.,
Weinberger, Stegmann, Fischer, & Mandl, 2007). Thus, a cru-
cial question for research is how collaborative learning can
be supported in order to stimulate such high-level collabora-
tion processes and learning outcomes. Computer-supported
collaborative learning (CSCL) allows for new learning ex-
periences that many students have not encountered before.
For example, web-based inquiry learning in the classroom
Correspondence should be addressed to Frank Fischer, Department of
Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat Munchen, Leopoldstrae 13,
D-80802, Munchen, Germany. E-mail: frank.fischer@psy.lmu.de
(Linn & Slotta, 2000), online discussions of cases (Wein-
berger, Ertl, Fischer, & Mandl, 2005), or joint writing and
editing of wikis (Cress & Kimmerle, 2008) all aim at the
collaborative construction of knowledge. However, the more
a CSCL practice differs from traditional teaching and learn-
ing experiences, the more difficult it may be for students
to collaborate efficiently. Students with little prior experi-
ence regarding these collaborative practices may not have
developed adequate knowledge that guides them in collabo-
rating in these settings. Following Kollar, Fischer, and Slotta
(2007), we call this kind of knowledge internal collaboration
scripts. In the script theory of guidance in CSCL presented
in this article, they play a crucial role in explaining what
guides learners activities in CSCL settings.
One way to compensate for lacking or nonfunctional in-
ternal collaboration scripts is to provide collaborators with
external collaboration scripts (King, 2007; Kollar, Fischer,
& Hesse, 2006; Rummel & Spada, 2005; Weinberger et al.,
2005) that guide individuals in a collaborative situation. De-
spite some descriptive analytical accounts of what CSCL
scripts are (e.g., Kobbe et al., 2007) and a substantial num-
ber of empirical studies on the effects of external collabo-
ration scripts on processes and outcomes of learning (e.g.,
Hamalainen, Oksanen, & Hakkinen, 2008; Rummel & Spada,

2005; Schellens, van Keer, De Wever, & Valcke, 2007;
Stegmann, Weinberger, & Fischer, 2007), a coherent theoret-
ical account (i.e., a script theory) still appears to be missing.
The goal of this article is to outline a script theory of guidance
in CSCL to provide such a coherent theoretical account. Con-
cerning the guidance of learners activities in CSCL settings,
the theory assigns a central role to two main factors, internal
and external collaboration scripts; these are conceived of as
distinct but largely parallel in structure. An internal collab-
oration script is a configuration of knowledge components
about a collaborative practice and its parts at different lev-
els of complexity (the so-called internal collaboration script
components) that guide the persons understanding of and
actions in the collaboration. It is assumed that this configu-
ration is built up dynamically from its constituents during a
particular instance of collaboration. An external collabora-
tion script is a configuration of representations (e.g. textual or
graphical) of a collaborative practice and its parts at (poten-
tially) different levels of complexity (the so-called external
collaboration script components). The external collaboration
script is presented to a group of learners by an external source
(e.g., a teacher or a website interface) as a means to guide
their collaborative activities. It is assumed that this guidance
emerges as a consequence of the way in which these exter-
nal representations influence collaborators configuration of
internal collaboration script components.
The script theory of guidance is based on four script com-
ponents and seven principles. The seven principles, presented
in Table 1, are grouped in subsets according to three ques-
tions:
1. How do internal collaboration scripts and situational
characteristics interact in shaping CSCL practices
(Principles 1 & 2)?
2. How do internal collaboration scripts develop and
change through participation in CSCL practices, and
what is their role in the acquisition of knowledge (Prin-
ciples 35)?
3. How do external collaboration scripts affect CSCL
practices and individual knowledge acquisition (Prin-
ciples 6 & 7)?
The four components are play, scene, role, and scriptlet,
and they are introduced with the first set of principles.
The script theory of guidance in CSCL draws on two main
theoretical perspectives. First, it refers to schema-theoretical
accounts of cognition, mainly to explain how internal scripts
develop and how they are used for understanding and act-
ing when collaborating with others. The script concept has
had a long history in cognitive science, starting with the idea
of quite large and stable (some say: rigid) cognitive struc-
tures (Schank & Abelson, 1977) to more recent approaches
that have broken scripts down to multiple components of
a dynamic memory that are flexibly combined on the ba-
sis of aspects of a situation and an individuals goals (e.g.,
SCRIPT THEORY OF GUIDANCE 57
Kintsch, 1998; Schank, 1999). The script theory of guidance
builds on one of these more flexible schema theories, namely,
the theory of dynamic memory (Schank, 1999). Second, the
script theory of guidance builds on sociocultural perspec-
tives, adopting the view that discourse activities on the social
plane precede and shape the structure of complex cogni-
tive skills (i.e., the Genetic Law of Development; Vygotsky,
1978). The theory also incorporates the idea of the Zone of
Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978), in particular the
assumption that individuals advance their knowledge and
skills by participating in activities that extend beyond their
current skill level while being supported by more knowledge-
able others. In the script theory of guidance, sociocultural
ideas are mainly used to explain how participation in CSCL
practices stimulates (but not determines) the development of
an individuals cognition (Kolodner, 2007). A main criticism
of sociocultural approaches has been the lack of assump-
tions about how the internalized knowledge is structured and
selected in later discourse activities. By integrating socio-
cultural accounts with assumptions of recent schema theory,
the script theory of guidance addresses these criticisms. A
further criticism of sociocultural approaches has been that
the process of internalization remains underspecified. To this
end, the script theory of guidance specifies (a) how internal
collaboration scripts are induced and reconfigured through
participation in CSCL practices and (b) how external collab-
oration scripts could be designed and gradually faded out to
facilitate the development of internal collaboration scripts.
In the presentation of the theory principles, empirical find-
ings are presented whenever possible as illustrations and ini-
tial support. Of course, most of the cited studies originally
offered alternative theoretical accounts. However, the script
theory of guidance provides a unified theoretical perspective
to explain a broad range of findings from the CSCL literature.
Yet the corpus of presented studies cannot be considered a
definitive empirical test of the assumptions of the script the-
ory of guidance.
HOW INTERNAL COLLABORATION SCRIPTS
SHAPE CSCL PRACTICES
The script theory of guidance in CSCL includes two prin-
ciples concerning how internal collaboration scripts affect
CSCL practices and how they are selected (Table 1):
1. When participating in a CSCL practice, the learners
understanding of and acting in this situation is guided
by dynamically configured and reconfigured internal
collaboration scripts consisting of play, scene, script-
let, and role components (Principle 1, internal script
guidance principle).
2. How an internal collaboration script is dynamically
configured by a learner from the available components
to guide the processing of a given situation, is influ-
enced by the learners set of goals and by perceived
58 FISCHER, KOLLAR, STEGMANN, WECKER
Principles of the Script Theory of Guidance in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
Principle No. Principle Name
1 Internal script guidance principle
2 Internal script configuration principle
3 Internal script induction principle
4 Internal script reconfiguration principle
5 Transactivity principle
6 External script guidance principle
7 Optimal external scripting level principle
Note. CSCL = computer-supported collaborative learning.
situational characteristics (Principle 2, internal script
configuration principle).
CSCL practices are verbal and nonverbal interaction pat-
terns of two or more participants that repeatedly occur in
technology-enhanced settings with similar functions. We
call knowledge of such a collaborative practice an inter-
nal collaboration script and regard them as configurations
of knowledge components about a collaborative practice. The
closeness of the script term to the theatre context is inten-
tional and has been emphasized earlier (e.g., by Schank,
1999). However, in differentiating the components of inter-
nal collaboration scripts and their flexible hierarchical orga-
nization, we extend dynamic memory theory (Schank, 1999)
by more explicitly integrating and characterizing a role com-
ponent. Furthermore, we extend the theatre metaphor by re-
placing the memory organization package or MOP that
Schank suggested as a top-level component, with a play
component to emphasize partial parallelism between inter-
nal and external collaboration scripts that are discussed next.
According to our theory, knowledge about a collaborative
practice thus comprises the following components: (a) The
play component constitutes knowledge about the play that
the participants are performing (e.g., an argumentative dia-
logue or joint Wiki writing), which includes knowledge of
the sequence of scenes and of the roles involved in it. (b)
Scene components include knowledge about situations in a
play (Schank, 1999, p. 123). For example, within an argu-
TABLE 1
Principle Formulation
When participating in a CSCL practice, the learners understanding of and acting in this
situation is guided by dynamically configured and reconfigured internal collaboration
scripts consisting of play, scene, scriptlet, and role components.
How an internal collaboration script is dynamically configured by a learner from the
available components to guide the processing of a given situation, is influenced by the
learners set of goals and by perceived situational characteristics.
If a learner participates in an initially unfamiliar CSCL practice, then he or she builds a
new configuration of already available internal script components and, through repeated
application of this configuration of internal script components, develops new
higher-level components (play, scene, or role) that organize the subordinate components
(scenes, roles, and scriptlets) for this CSCL practice.
If a learners employed internal collaboration script (i.e., a configuration of internal script
components) does not lead to understanding or successful actions in a CSCL practice,
the internal collaboration script configuration is likely to be modified.
The more a given CSCL practice requires the transactive application of knowledge, the
better this knowledge is learned through participation in this CSCL practice.
External collaboration scripts enable learners to engage in an instance of a CSCL practice
at a level beyond what they would be able to without an external collaboration script
either by inhibiting the automated use of internal script components or by inducing the
application of internal script components that are not yet organized by a specific higher
level script component.
An external collaboration script is most effective for knowledge acquisition if it is directed
at the highest possible hierarchical level of internal collaboration script components for
which subordinate components are already available to the learner.
mentative dialogue play, a scene would be the development
of a counter-position to a claim that was put forward before.
(c) Scriptlet components constitute knowledge of sequences
of activities within particular scenes (Schank, 1999, p. 125).
For example, when developing a counterposition to an afore-
mentioned argument, a learners internal script may include
scriptlets suggesting to first state a claim and then provide
evidence for it. (d) Role components constitute knowledge
of roles that are part of the current collaborative practice
and organize appropriate activities that can be contributed
by specific participants. As in a theatre play, roles typically
extend across several scenes and comprise several activities.
The role component thereby intersects with the scene com-
ponent in organizing scriptlets that refer to these single ac-
tivities. In the argumentative dialogue play, for example, the
role component includes knowledge about the existence of at
least two different positions that are advocated by at least two
different persons who act in a different, but rather compatible
way (by exchanging arguments) across the different scenes
of the play.
We argue that it would be a mistake to regard internal col-
laboration scripts as fixed cognitive structures that guide an
individual through a complete collaborative practice. Instead,
internal collaboration scripts are viewed as flexible in the
sense that for almost any given situation, a learner will have
a set of different plays, scenes, scriptlets, and roles available
that are likely to be (subjectively) applicable. Slight changes
in the situation may evoke an on-the-fly exchange of some

of the script components applied in this particular situation.
Thus, internal collaboration scripts need to be understood
as highly flexible configurations of knowledge components
(plays, scenes, scriptlets, and roles) that have a likely se-
quencing (if the collaborative practice proceeds as expected)
but can be dynamically reconfigured according to changes
in the situation or in the activity. This is not necessarily a
conscious process (Schank, 1999).
According to Principle 1, an instantiation of a CSCL prac-
tice emerges as an interaction of the participating persons
who are guided by their individual knowledge about the
CSCL practice that is contained in their configurations of in-
ternal collaboration script components. According to Princi-
ple 2, how internal collaboration script components available
to a person are configured and reconfigured as the guiding
internal collaboration script depends on the persons goals
and the perceived situational constraints and affordances that
change as the collaborative practices evolves and transforms
the situation. The guidance provided by the configuration of
script components relates not only to how people act in the
situation but also to how they understand the situation and
what they therefore expect to happen.
Outside the CSCL context, evidence for the significance
of internal scripts to understand and act in the world around us
can be found in developmental psychology (e.g., Lampinen,
Faries, Neuschatz, & Toglia, 2000) and psycholinguistics
(Kellermann, Broetzmann, Lim, & Kitao, 1989). For exam-
ple, Kellermann et al. (1989) asked university students to
describe conversational activities that are typical for situa-
tions in which two persons meet each other for the first time.
The researchers identified a culturally shared play (the ini-
tial conversation MOP; p. 27) that includes a set of scenes
(initiation, maintenance and termination) which, in turn, in-
clude sets of scriptlets (subroutines; Kellermann et al.,
1989, p. 50). These scenes and scriptlets also guided partic-
ipants in this study in their initial conversations with other
participants.
Likewise, it can be assumed that internal collaboration
scripts guide the way learners understand and act in CSCL
practices. Empirical support comes from a study that exam-
ined the extent to which internal collaboration scripts affect
the quality of collaborative argumentation in a CSCL inquiry
unit (Kollar et al., 2007). Ninety secondary school students
participated. Results indicated that students with more elabo-
rate internal collaboration scripts about argumentation (mea-
sured by their performance in analyzing a discourse protocol)
contributed more appropriate arguments to discussions than
students with less elaborate internal collaboration scripts.
According to Principle 2, situational affordances and con-
straints influence the configuration of internal collaboration
script components. Affordances are perceived possibilities
for activities in a given situation (see also Norman, 1993).
For example, an empty text field with a blinking cursor is
likely to be perceived as an opportunity to enter text via a
keyboard. Constraints are perceived limitations on the set
SCRIPT THEORY OF GUIDANCE 59
of possible activities. For example, if the collaboration in-
terface of an online discussion forum automatically inserts
clarification question into the subject line but provides a
text entry window of only two lines when the reply button is
clicked, then many other possible activities such as formulat-
ing an elaborate counterargument seem to be excluded (see
also Kirschner, Beers, Boshuizen, & Gijselaers, 2007).
Situational constraints and affordances can be specific for
different kinds of external representations, and encountering
a specific external representation can lead to the employment
of corresponding internal collaboration script components.
Evidence for this comes from a study by Suthers and Hund-
hausen (2003) in which 30 dyads of university students used
a graph, matrix, or text format to represent data, hypothe-
ses, and evidential relations while exploring the causes of
two science phenomena. Learners in the matrix conditions
focused more strongly on the evidential relations in their ver-
bal utterances than did learners in the other two conditions.
This can be interpreted to mean that affordances to represent
specific aspects of the problem influenced the participants
configuration of internal collaboration script components to
guide them through the situation.
Beyond constraints and affordances of the situation, a per-
sons goals also influence the selection of an internal collab-
oration script. Each configuration of internal collaboration
script components that map onto the current goal structure
of the person is more likely to be employed than any other
configuration. Evidence for this can be found in a study by
Pfister and Oehl (2009), in which 118 university students col-
laborated in small groups in a chat environment. They were
told that they would either receive rewards based on their in-
dividual performance (individual goal focus) or be rewarded
based on their groups performance (group goal focus). In
comparison to students with an individual goal focus, stu-
dents with a group goal focus were better able to ground their
discussion by using a function offered in the chat environ-
ment that used arrows to point to the text being referenced.
From a script theory of guidance perspective, imposing a
group goal focus may have led to a different configuration of
internal collaboration script components than imposing an in-
dividual goal focus, which was evident in improved ground-
ing processes that were observed in the group goal focus
condition.
DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNAL
COLLABORATION SCRIPTS AND THEIR ROLE
IN KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION
Three further principles of the script theory of guidance ad-
dress the internalization of collaboration scripts and their role
in knowledge acquisition (Table 1):
3. If a learner participates in an initially unfamiliar CSCL
practice, then he or she builds a new configuration of
60 FISCHER, KOLLAR, STEGMANN, WECKER
already available internal script components and, through
repeated application of this configuration of internal script
components, develops new higher-level components (play,
scene, or role) that organize the subordinate components
(scenes, roles, and scriptlets) for this CSCL practice (Prin-
ciple 3, internal script induction principle).
4. If a learners employed internal collaboration script (i.e., a
configuration of internal script components) does not lead
to understanding or successful actions in a CSCL practice,
the internal collaboration script configuration is likely to
be modified (Principle 4, internal script reconfiguration
principle).
5. The more a given CSCL practice requires the transactive
application of knowledge, the better this knowledge is
learned through participation in this CSCL practice (Prin-
ciple 5, transactivity principle).
To illustrate these principles, suppose an individual en-
counters a situation in which collaborative activities are nec-
essary that are not yet part of the individuals repertoire. This
situation is likely to lead to confusion because the individ-
ual does not have available, for example, a play component
that seems functional to guide understanding and action in
the situation. However, the individual will not have entered
the situation without internal collaboration script compo-
nents about other collaborative practices that may share at
least some aspects (e.g., scenes) with the present situation.
Therefore, the individual will draw on a set of internal col-
laboration script components (i.e., scenes, roles, or scriptlets)
that belong to other collaborative practices but fulfil compa-
rable functions. According to the internal script induction
principle, if the same new configuration of such internal
collaboration script components is employed in similar in-
stantiations of the initially unfamiliar CSCL practice, a new
play component will develop that combines formerly uncon-
nected subordinate internal script components that have been
successfully employed (see Principle 3). The same applies to
the formation of new scene or role components.
An application of components of other internal scripts is,
however, only one way to deal with unfamiliar situations. If
the individual experiences the selected internal collaboration
script components as not leading to a satisfactory under-
standing or appropriate activities in an instance of a CSCL
practice, an expectation failure (Schank, 1999, p. 41) oc-
curs and a reconfiguration of the employed internal script
components becomes more likely (see Principle 4).
Empirical support for the internal script induction princi-
ple (Principle 3) comes from a study by Rummel and Spada
(2005) in which participants (N = 72) engaged in an un-
familiar CSCL practice (interdisciplinary work on patient
cases between students of psychology and medicine) in a
video-conferencing scenario. The results showed that mere
observation of a model collaboration before collaboration
led learners to acquire knowledge about how to collaborate
in an unfamiliar CSCL practice. In terms of the internal script
induction principle, it can be assumed that observing a role
model led learners to select a set of previously unconnected
internal collaboration script components, which helped them
to effectively engage in a previously unfamiliar CSCL prac-
tice. The repeated participation in instances of this CSCL
practice led to the development of a new play component
that combined those previously unconnected internal script
components.
A study by Kapur and Kinzer (2009) on productive
failure offers preliminary support for the internal script
reconfiguration principle (Principle 4). Science students
(N = 177) learned collaboratively with either well- or ill-
structured problems. After collaboration, each participant
solved a well- and an ill-structured problem individually.
The results showed that during collaborative learning, learn-
ers failed to solve the ill-structured problems more often than
the well-structured problems. However, in the individual ill-
structured posttest, learners who failed during collaboration
outperformed those who did not fail during collaboration.
The authors argued that failure during collaboration enables
learners to discern relevant features and structures. In terms
of the internal script reconfiguration principle, learners who
experienced their selected internal collaboration scripts pro-
ducing expectation failures during collaborative solving of
ill-structured problems were more likely to reconfigure their
internal collaboration script, thereby enabling them to better
solve ensuing ill-structured problems.
There is ample evidence that learning is crucially influ-
enced by feedback from the environment. It has to be noted,
however, that learning does not automatically take place when
learners are confronted with failure to understand and to
act (e.g., Dole & Sinatra, 1998). The conditions of failure-
induced reconfiguration of internal collaboration scripts have
not yet been investigated systematically, but one promising
hypothesis is that failures have positive effects especially
when they hinder individuals in reaching a personally rele-
vant goal (Schank, 1999).
The transactivity principle (Principle 5) states that the
more a given CSCL practice requires the transactive appli-
cation of knowledge, the better this knowledge is learned
through participation. This principle is based on two main
assumptions: The first assumption is that the more actively an
individual applies certain knowledge, the better this knowl-
edge is acquired. For subject matter knowledge, Schank
(1999) argued that without meaningful practices (typical for
many non-problem-oriented, school-based learning environ-
ments) subject matter knowledge might be encapsulated in
internal scripts that develop specifically for reproducing facts
in exams. However, this subject matter knowledge is likely to
remain inert and can hardly be applied in contexts other than
the exam (Renkl, Mandl, & Gruber, 1996). Support for this
assumption comes from a study by Stegmann, Weinberger,
and Fischer (2011) that examined the relation between the use
of subject matter knowledge in an argumentative activity and
individual subject matter knowledge acquisition. The authors

analyzed 36 online discussions of groups of three students
of educational science (N = 108). Their results showed that
the more subject matter knowledge was applied to a problem
case in the argumentative activity, the more knowledge was
acquired by the participating individuals.
The second assumption of the transactivity principle is
that individuals learn the more, the more a CSCL practice
requires transactivity. A discourse is transactive when learn-
ers build on earlier contributions of their learning partner(s)
and hence use their partner(s) as a resource. The transac-
tivity assumption is a central tenet of collaborative learning
research. Dillenbourg and Jermann (2007) suggested that the
effectiveness of collaborative learning crucially depends on
the necessity of mutual reference of the learning partners
(Split Where Interaction Should Happen; p. 292). Accord-
ing to Teasley (1997), transactive contributions are those
in which an individual further develops a thought of another
with transacts such as integrations, critiques, clarifications,
or paraphrases. In an empirical study (N = 24), Teasley
found evidence for a positive correlation between transacts
and learning outcomes during joint problem solving. In a
recent review, Chi (2009) showed that learning activities in
which learning partners used one another as information re-
sources and built on one anothers thoughts were associated
with better learning outcomes when compared to other types
of activities. Similarly, Stegmann, Weinberger, et al. (2011;
see earlier) showed that discussions with higher transactivity
resulted in more subject matter knowledge being applied to
a problem case and more knowledge acquired by the par-
ticipating individuals, which can be interpreted as empirical
evidence in support of this principle.
EFFECTS OF EXTERNAL COLLABORATION
SCRIPTS ON CSCL PRACTICES AND
LEARNING
External collaboration scripts are representations that may
guide CSCL practices by either facilitating or inhibiting the
application of internal collaboration script components of the
participating individuals. In the facilitation case, an external
collaboration script creates situational affordances that in-
fluence learners selection of specific internal collaboration
script components (according to Principle 2), which are ap-
plied in the CSCL practice (according to Principle 1). In
the inhibition case, external collaboration scripts reduce the
probability of dysfunctional internal script components being
employed in the configuration that guides the learner. Inhi-
bition works either by (a) interrupting automated sequences
of script components by establishing situational constraints
on the range of possible activities and making the learner
aware of them through hints and prompts, or (b) creating in-
compatible affordances to engage the learner in sequences of
activities that cannot be combined with the activities in the
initially selected internal script.
SCRIPT THEORY OF GUIDANCE 61
The components of external collaboration scripts are as-
sumed to largely correspond to the structure of the four types
of components of an internal collaboration script previously
described. This does not imply, however, that the configu-
ration of internal collaboration script components employed
in a particular collaboration is a simple mirror image of
the external collaboration script encountered in the learning
environment. Rather, external collaboration script compo-
nents are regarded as scaffolds that may induce a functional
configuration of internal script components. The same scaf-
folds may stimulate different internal script configurations in
learners at different levels of expertise. The script theory of
guidance differentiates between four types of scaffolds (or
external script components) that differ in their cognitive tar-
get level: (a) Play scaffolds are prompts directed to influence
the topmost level of an internal collaboration script configu-
ration; that is, they provide general task definitions detailing
the main goal of the collaboration such as joint problem solv-
ing or procon argumentation without giving further prompts
on how to reach this goal. (b) Scene scaffolds target scenes
already known by the individual (e.g., individual analysis,
group discussion, plenary presentation) and put them into
a sequence that constitutes a comprehensive play. (c) Role
scaffolds target the application of knowledge on roles or role
sets that can transgress the boundaries of scenes, and assign
specific roles to the participating learners. (d) Scriptlet scaf-
folds prompt learners to apply available scriptlets needed to
successfully engage in a scene.
The third set of principles addresses the effects of such ex-
ternal collaboration scripts on CSCL practices and on knowl-
edge acquisition of the participating individuals (Table 1):
6. External collaboration scripts enable learners to engage in
an instance of a CSCL practice at a level beyond what they
would be able to without an external collaboration script
either by inhibiting the automated use of internal script
components or by inducing the application of internal
script components that are not yet organized by a specific
higher level script component (Principle 6, external script
guidance principle).
7. An external collaboration script is most effective for
knowledge acquisition if it is directed at the highest pos-
sible hierarchical level of internal collaboration script
components for which subordinate components are al-
ready available to the learner (Principle 7, optimal external
scripting level principle).
Several empirical studies on the effects of external col-
laboration scripts on CSCL practices can be considered as
supporting the external script guidance principle (Principle
6; e.g., Hamalainen et al., 2008; Kollar et al., 2007; Schel-
lens et al., 2007; Schoonenboom, 2008; Stegmann et al.,
2007; Wecker, Stegmann, et al., 2010; Weinberger et al.,
2005; Weinberger, Stegmann, & Fischer, 2010). A first set
of studies shows that external collaboration scripts can im-
prove CSCL discourse, compared to unstructured CSCL. For
62 FISCHER, KOLLAR, STEGMANN, WECKER
example, Schoonenboom (2008) examined the effects of a
collaboration script for grounding collaboration processes.
Forty-two students worked together at a distance in small
groups of four to six. The external collaboration script con-
sisted of scene scaffolds to support grounding in a CSCL
environment that instructed learners to first provide input in-
dividually, then discuss the contributions and finally build
a consensus. Learners with the external collaboration script
contributed more and were better able to share their knowl-
edge and to identify knowledge differences than students
without the external script. Hamalainen et al. (2008) found
similar positive effects of a collaboration script consisting of
scene scaffolds in a study with vocational students.
Using an external collaboration script with role scaffolds,
Schellens et al. (2007) distributed roles in an asynchronous
discussion board, which led individuals in small groups to
engage in the intended, more role-congruent activities. The
authors analyzed two successive cohorts of students (N =
223 and N = 286) participating in discussion groups for
one semester with only the groups of one cohort being sup-
ported with an external collaboration script. Results showed
that groups with an external collaboration script exhibited
higher levels of knowledge building activities in the online
discussions than groups without the script.
Stegmann, Wecker, Weinberger, and Fischer (2012) em-
ployed an external collaboration script aimed at supporting
learners in online discussions to construct arguments on a
scriptlet level with a claim, ground, and qualification. Learn-
ers were supported with an external script that was imple-
mented as a graphical interface offering different text fields
labeled claim, ground, and qualification. The results script components.
of a study with 48 participants in groups of three showed
that learners supported by scaffolding on the scriptlet level
showed more cognitive elaboration during online discussion
(measured by means of think-aloud protocols) and acquired
more knowledge on argumentation than did learners without
support.
The optimal external scripting level principle (Principle 7)
states that an external script that provides scaffolds for sub-
ordinate internal script components that are already available
should be less efficient than one that directly targets higher
level internal script components because of the additional
need to process unnecessary information. The idea of over-
scripting (Dillenbourg, 2002) is related to this line of think-
ing. According to the script theory of guidance, overscripting
is not just too much external scaffolding. Overscripting oc-
curs when the provision of an external collaboration script
inhibits the learners self-regulated application of appropriate
higher level internal collaboration script components (i.e.,
external scripting targeted at a wrong hierarchical level).
Therefore, an external collaboration script that includes un-
necessary scaffolds at lower hierarchical script levels is likely
to hinder knowledge acquisition.
A study by Makitalo, Weinberger, Hakkinen, Jarvela, and was simply faded over time without additional instructional
Fischer (2005) supports this assumption. Forty-eight stu-
dents of educational science participated in asynchronous
CSCL discussions in groups of three. An external collabo-
ration script consisting of scriptlet scaffolds was found to
impede individual knowledge acquisition. Applying the op-
timal scripting level principle as a theoretical lens, students
in this study may already have had adequate scriptlets at
their disposal and thus did not need further scriptlet scaf-
folds. Hence, processing these scaffolds may have caused
unnecessary load.
Scripting at a level that is too low (i.e., too specific) for
a learner, as supposedly happened in the study by Maki-
talo et al. (2005), can constitute a problem not only for the
acquisition of subject matter knowledge but also for the inter-
nalization of a collaboration script. Such an external collabo-
ration script takes regulation away from the learners and may
thereby prevent them from developing higher level internal
script components. Learners who have recently received sup-
port from an external collaboration script have been guided
by the specific constellation of internal script components
induced by the external collaboration script (according to
Principle 1) and are thus likely to develop corresponding
higher level internal collaboration script components that
integrate these components (according to Principle 3). Ac-
cordingly, with repeated application, the optimal external
scripting level shifts to higher levels. Thus the optimal ex-
ternal scripting level principle implies that learning is more
likely to happen when learners are given the opportunity to
apply their newly developed higher level script components
for regulating their activities. A straightforward way to pro-
vide this opportunity is by fading out external collaboration
Evidence for the influence of fading comes from a study
by Wecker and Fischer (2011), in which learners, supported
by either an unfaded or a faded external script that included
scriptlet scaffolds on different levels of specificity, were re-
quired to write counterarguments in an asynchronous on-
line discussion. Learners in the faded script condition ac-
quired higher quality internal scripts about argumentation
than learners in the unfaded script condition, provided that
their learning partners monitored how they followed the strat-
egy of argumentation suggested by the external script. This
finding indicates that, provided that continuous application
of the script is secured, adjusting the level of an external
script through fading can lead to improved script intern
alization.
According to this line of reasoning, it is a crucial pre-
requisite for a positive effect of fading on the development
of an internal collaboration script that learners continue to
act in accordance with the strategy suggested by the external
collaboration script. The importance of this precondition is
emphasized by two further studies: A study by Stegmann,
Mu, Gehlen-Baum, and Fischer (2011) showed that there
was no positive effect for an external collaboration script that
means to secure the continuous application of the strategy

suggested by the external collaboration script. Similarly, a
study by Wecker, Kollar, Fischer, and Prechtl (2010) inves-
tigated the effects of a faded external collaboration script in
contrast to a continuously available external script with re-
spect to the development of an internal script. In this study,
the gradual fading-out procedure for an external collabo-
ration script guiding collaborative information search in a
learning environment on genetic engineering continued for
several weeks. The fading-out process was controlled by the
number of information searches the learners conducted and
not by the actual quality of the collaborative search and dis-
course processes. Results showed that learners with the faded
external script did not internalize the script on information
search better than learners with a continuously available (un-
faded) script.
A further implication of the optimal external scripting
level principle is that fading that is adapted to the learners
current state in the development of internal script compo-
nents should be more effective for script internalization than
fixed fading regimes. In a more adaptive realization of fading,
Tsovaltzi et al. (2010) provided scaffolds of an external col-
laboration script that were continuously adjusted to the qual-
ity of contributions to the discussion. The authors compared
processes and outcomes of three dyads supported by a non-
adaptive external collaboration script with three dyads sup-
ported by an adaptive external collaboration script. Specific
components of the external collaboration script were adap-
tively presented in response to a low quality of the respective
discourse indicators. Qualitative and descriptive quantitative
results indicated that learners with the adaptive external col-
laboration script outperformed learners in conditions without
an external collaboration script and continuously available
external collaboration script.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This article presented an outline of a script theory of guid-
ance in CSCL. According to this theory, internal collabora-
tion scripts develop as an attempt by learners to effectively
understand and act in recurring CSCL practices. These CSCL
practices are themselves shaped by the internal collaboration
scripts of the participating individuals that consist of the com-
ponents play, scenes, scriptlets, and roles. Sufficiently flex-
ible internal collaboration scripts are modified dynamically
if they do not lead to successful understanding or acting in a
collaborative practice according to the individual goals of the
learner or if the situation changes. New internal collaboration
script components develop as (re-)configurations of existing
collaboration script components that are successfully em-
ployed together to reach the learners individual goals. With
respect to the acquisition of knowledge, CSCL practices that
require transactive application of knowledge are regarded as
more effective than nontransactive ones.
SCRIPT THEORY OF GUIDANCE 63
External collaboration scripts consist of scaffolds that
stimulate or inhibit internal script components (play scaf-
folds, scene scaffolds, role scaffolds, scriptlet scaffolds) to
help learners acquire new higher-level internal script compo-
nents and subject matter knowledge. With respect to learning,
external collaboration scripts are more effective if their scaf-
folds stimulate a self-directed employment of script com-
ponents as much as possible. In that sense, optimal scaf-
folds address internal script components on the highest level
possible where subordinate components are already part of
a learners cognitive repertoire rather than redundantly pre-
scribing how and in which sequence specific activities should
be performed. Thus, the script theory of guidance for CSCL
can inform the design of external collaboration scripts with
respect to when they can effectively be used, which scaf-
folds are likely to induce the application of specific internal
script components, and how these scaffolds can be removed
to increase the likelihood of a self-directed configuration and
application of internal script components.
Empirical studies in CSCL show that well-designed exter-
nal collaboration scripts enable learners to engage in complex
CSCL practices beyond what they would be able to do on their
own. As a consequence of participating in CSCL practices
that are improved in this way, participants develop more elab-
orate internal collaboration scripts. Well-developed internal
scripts are self-regulation tools for the acquisition of knowl-
edge through CSCL practices. One of the open questions for
script research is how subject matter knowledge and collab-
oration scripts relate. The script theory of guidance assumes
that subject matter knowledge is more likely to be acquired
through its transactive use in CSCL practices. There are some
empirical findings that can be considered as supporting this
principle (e.g., Stegmann, Weinberger, et al., 2011). It may,
however, be argued that processes of internal script induc-
tion and reconfiguration, on one hand, and subject matter
knowledge acquisition, on the other hand, are not always
synergetic. There is evidence that the existence of a well-
developed internal script prior to the collaborative learning
phase is beneficial for subject matter knowledge acquisition
(Kollar et al., 2007). A straightforward consequence seems to
be that it is more effective to first facilitate the development
of the internal collaboration script and then collaboratively
learn the subject matter knowledge (ODonnell & Dansereau,
1992). However, this approach would leave major advantages
of CSCL technology unused, namely, the targeted and possi-
bly adaptive support during collaboration. In addition, some
studies show that process-related scripting support can sub-
stantially promote subject matter knowledge and internal col-
laboration scripts simultaneously (e.g., Wecker, Kollar, et al.,
2010). Future research should address the relation of script
induction/reconfiguration and subject matter knowledge ac-
quisition more directly, for example, by varying the degree
of elaboration of the internal script experimentally and by
analyzing how subject matter knowledge is associated with
internal scripts.
64 FISCHER, KOLLAR, STEGMANN, WECKER
Another interesting open question for script research is to
what extent the script components and levels currently in-
cluded in the script theory of guidance (play, scene, scriptlet,
and role) are a helpful conceptual toolkit to analyze and de-
sign all kinds of collaborations scripts. For example, a subset
of CSCL practices based on joint problem-solving includes
recurring sequences of scenes that can be described as ex-
ploration, solution, and evaluation (Slof, Erkens, Kirschner,
Jaspers, & Janssen, 2010). Applying the script theory of
guidance, one would conceptualize an exploration phase as
a scene that, in turn, includes a number of scenes itself.
However, it might be worthwhile to explore conceptually and
empirically, whether the inclusion of additional levels and
components such as an act component could further ad-
vance the analysis and design of scripts for specific CSCL
practices.
A further important topic for discussion is related to sup-
posedly too high levels of external support for CSCL. It is a
widespread misconception of CSCL scripts that they are rigid
digital stencils of interaction meant for ensuring individual
knowledge acquisitionat the expense of naturally occur-
ring collaboration. In contrast, collaboration scripts should
be regarded as external aids for a phase when higher level
internal collaboration script components are not available
or cannot be spontaneously transferred from the memory
of previous experiences to the current situation. External
collaboration scripts are primarily a means of preventing
underscripting effects (i.e., little learning due to too open
learning environments that leave too many degrees of free-
dom or place too high a load on the learner; see Kirschner,
Sweller, & Clark, 2006). However, research also indicates
that students learn from failure (see Kapur & Kinzer, 2009;
Schank, 1999) when they realize that their internal scripts are
not functional. This is reflected in the internal script recon-
figuration principle. An interesting open question concerns
how learning environments can be designed to more system-
atically enable productive failure in collaborative learning
without withholding necessary guidance.
Another interesting topic for future collaboration script
research is fading (e.g., Wecker & Fischer, 2011). Currently, a
lot of research effort is devoted to the conditions under which
adaptive and adaptable CSCL scripts are effective (Diziol,
Walker, Rummel, & Koedinger, 2010; Tsovaltzi et al., 2010).
The adaptive fading of external collaboration scripts might
be an interesting topic for research from a developmental
point of view as well. Although the amount of external script
support required for optimal learning of a specific skill may
decrease over time, it seems plausible that the collaborative
practices in which children engage increase in complexity
as children develop into adolescents and adults. Therefore,
the overall degree of external scripting might remain on a
relatively constant level over an extended time frame while
the specific content of the external script support changes.
Yet, in future research and practical implementations
of more adaptive external collaboration scripts, better and
more efficient methods for diagnosing internal collabora-
tion scripts are needed. To develop effective diagnostic tools,
it seems plausible to refer back to standard methods of
schema and script research such as recall measures and re-
action times. However, we argued that internal collabora-
tion scripts are multilevel configurations of components that
can be dynamically reconfigured as a response to chang-
ing situations and to changing individual goals. Diagnostic
tools thus have to take this dynamic and adaptive nature
into account. Promising recent advances in computer lin-
guistics could be systematically explored to diagnose dy-
namic internal collaboration scripts during their use in a par-
ticular CSCL setting (e.g., Mu, Stegmann, Mayfield, Rose,
& Fischer, 2012; Rose et al., 2008). Beyond improved di-
agnostic tools, machine-readability is another precondition
for adaptive external collaboration scripts. Script formal-
ization is a challenging interdisciplinary endeavor toward
a psychologically valid and yet machine-readable descrip-
tion of essential script components (Hernandez-Leo, Jorrin-
Abellan, Villasclaras-Fernandez, Asensio-Perez, 2010; Ro-
nen, Kohen-Vacs, & Raz-Fogel, 2006).
Another important issue is self-regulation and metacog-
nitive awareness of the internal collaboration scripts. It can
be argued that an increased number of internal collabora-
tion script components contribute to an increased freedom
of a learner: At any given situation, there are potentially
more options to understand and to act. However, the script
theory of guidance does not explicitly address the learners
awareness of their own internal scripts. More specifically, it
does not elaborate on a metacognitive component that would
enable conscious selection of internal collaboration script
components. Yet it seems to be a promising route for future
theory-building to relate the script theory of guidance to the
emerging research on shared regulation and co-regulation
(Jarvela & Hadwin, 2013/this issue). A paradigmatic bridge
between research on scripting and research on coregulation
seem to exist already: Adaptable external scripts, which re-
quire learners to discuss which components of the external
collaboration scripts to keep and which ones to switch off
(Wang, Kollar, Stegmann, & Fischer, 2011).
On a more comprehensive theoretical level, this article
proposes an instructional theory that builds on a recent ver-
sion of schema theory, dynamic memory theory (Schank,
1999), to overcome one major problem of early schema the-
ories, namely, the issue of schemas and scripts as cognitive
structures too rigid to explain the highly adaptive behavior
that individuals exhibit in social practices. However, the the-
ory proposed here extends the theory of dynamic memory
by more explicitly linking the cognitive side to the collabo-
rative practice considered to be both the origin and a field of
application of cognition. The proposed theory draws on so-
ciocultural ideas, especially the Genetic Law of Develop-
ment and the Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky,
1978). We believe that the script theory of guidance in CSCL
has the potential to establish a closer link between cognitive

theorizing on collaborative learning in psychology, on one
side, and organizational and institutional research on collab-
oration in other social sciences, on the other. The multidisci-
plinary field of CSCL is a promising context to explore and
possibly strengthen this link.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors contributed equally to this article and are there-
fore listed in alphabetical order. We thank Nicolas Balacheff,
Jim Slotta, and Jan-Willem Strijbos for their critical and en-
couraging comments on earlier versions of the paper. We are
grateful to Armin Weinberger and Heinz Mandl for more than
a decade of inspiring collaboration that laid the foundation
of this work.
REFERENCES
Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual frame-
work for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science,
1, 73105. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systemic and cognitive view on collabo-
rative knowledge building with wikis. International Journal of Computer-
Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 105122. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-
9035-z
Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three
worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL (pp. 6191). Heerlen: Open
University of the Netherlands.
Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In
F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting
computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational,
and educational perspectives (pp. 275301). New York, NY: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5
Diziol, D., Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2010). Using intel-
ligent tutor technology to implement adaptive support for student collabo-
ration. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 89102. doi:10.1007/s10648-
009-9116-9
Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptalizing change in the cogni-
tive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109128.
Hamalainen, R., Oksanen, K., & Hakkinen, P. (2008). Designing and analyz- ODonnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in
ing collaboration in a scripted game for vocational education. Computers
in Human Behavior, 24, 24962506. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.03.010
Hernandez-Leo, D., Jorrin-Abellan, I. M., Villasclaras-Fernandez, E. D.,
Asensio-Perez, J. I., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2010). A multicase study for
the evaluation of a pattern-based visual design process for collaborative
learning. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 21, 313331.
doi:10.1016/j.jvlc.2010.08.006
Jarvela, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013/this issue). New frontiers: Regulating
learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48, 2539.
Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. K. (2009). Productive failure in CSCL groups.
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4,
2146. doi:10.1007/s11412-008-9059-z
Kellermann, K., Broetzmann, S., Lim, T.-S., & Kitao, K. (1989). The con-
versation mop: Scenes in the stream of discourse. Discourse Processes,
12, 2761. doi:10.1080/01638538909544718
King, A. (1997). ASK to THINK-TEL WHY: A model of transactive peer
tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learning. Educational Psy-
chologist, 32, 221235. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3204 3
King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive per-
spective. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. Haake (Eds.), Scripting
computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational,
SCRIPT THEORY OF GUIDANCE 65
and educational perspectives (pp. 1337). New York, NY: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.
Kirschner, P. A., Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2008).
Coercing shared knowledge in collaborative learning environments. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 24, 403420. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.028
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance
during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of construc-
tivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching.
Educational Psychologist, 41, 7586. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102 1
Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hamalainen, R.,
Hakkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported col-
laboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collab-
orative Learning, 2, 211224. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9014-4
Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scriptsA
conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 159185.
doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9007-2
Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts
in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and In-
struction, 17, 708721. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.021
Kolodner, J. L. (2007). The roles of scripts in promoting collaborative dis-
course in learning by design. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J.
M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning:
Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives (pp. 237262).
New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5
Lampinen, J. M., Faries, J. M., Neuschatz, J. S., & Toglia, M. P. (2000).
Recollections of things schematic: The influence of scripts on rec-
ollective experience. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 543554.
doi:10.1002/1099-0720(200011/12)14:6<543::AID-ACP674>3.0.CO;
2-K
Linn, M. C., & Slotta, J. D. (2000). WISE science. Educational Leadership,
58(2), 2932.
Makitalo, K., Weinberger, A., Hakkinen, P., Jarvela, S., & Fischer, F. (2005).
Epistemic cooperation scripts in online learning environments: Foster-
ing learning by reducing uncertainty in discourse? Computers in Human
Behavior, 21, 603622. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.033
Mu, J., Stegmann, K., Mayfield, E., Rose, C., & Fischer, F. (2012).
The ACODEA framework: Developing segmentation and classification
schemes for fully automatic analysis of online discussions. Informational
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7, 285305.
doi:10.1007/s11412-012-9147-y
Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that make us smart. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.033
student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learn-
ing and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), In-
teraction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group
learning (pp. 120141). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1080/00461520.1998.9653294
Pfister, H. R., & Oehl, M. (2009). The impact of goal focus, task
type and group size on synchronous net-based collaborative learn-
ing discourses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 161176.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00287.x
Renkl, A., Mandl, H., & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert knowledge:
Analyses and remedies. Educational Psychologist, 31, 115121.
doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3102 3
Ronen, M., Kohen-Vacs, D., & Raz-Fogel, N. (2006). Adopt and adapt:
Structuring, sharing and reusing asynchronous collaborative pedagogy.
In S. Barab, K. Hay, & D. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Inter-
national Conference on Learning Sciences (pp. 599606). Chicago, IL:
International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Rose, C. P., Wang, Y. C., Cui, Y., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Wein-
berger, A., & Fischer, F. (2008). Analyzing collaborative learning pro-
cesses automatically: Exploiting the advances of computational linguistics
in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of
66 FISCHER, KOLLAR, STEGMANN, WECKER
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 237271. doi:10.1007/
s11412-007-9034-0
Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instruc-
tional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-
mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 201241.
doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1402 2
Schank, R. C. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited. Cambridge, MA: Cam-
bridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511527920
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and under-
standing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by
assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous
discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collab-
orative Learning, 2, 225246. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9016-2
Schoonenboom, J. (2008). The effect of a script and a structured interface
in grounding discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 3, 327341. doi:10.1007/s11412-008-9042-8
Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., Jaspers, J., & Janssen, J. (2010).
Guiding students online complex learning-task behavior through rep-
resentational scripting. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 927939.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.007
Stegmann, K., Mu, J., Gehlen-Baum, V., & Fischer, F. (2011). The myth
of over-scripting: Can novices be supported too much? In H. Spada, G.
Stahl, N. Miyake, & N. Law (Eds.), Connecting Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning to Policy and Practice: CSCL2011 Conference
Proceedings Volume ILong Papers (pp. 406413). Hong Kong: Inter-
national Society of the Learning Sciences.
Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collabo-
rative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported
collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40, 297323.
Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argu-
mentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collabora-
tion scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning, 2, 421447. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9028-y
Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2011). Aktives Lernen durch
Argumentieren: Evidenz fur das Modell der Argumentativen Wissenskon-
struktion in Online-Diskussionen. [Active learning by argumentation: Ev-
idence for the model of argumentative knowledge construction in online
discussions.] Unterrichtswissenschaft, 39, 231244.
Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study
of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learn-
ing processes. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 183218.
doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1202 2
Teasley, S. D. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in
peer collaboration? In L. B. Resnick, R. Saljo, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge
(Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp.
361384). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Tsovaltzi, D., Rummel, N., McLaren, B. M., Pinkwart, N., Scheuer, O.,
Harrer, A., & Braun, I. (2010). Extending a virtual chemistry laboratory
with a collaboration script to promote conceptual learning. International
Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 2, 91110.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological functions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
doi:10.1504/IJTEL.2010.031262
Wang, X., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2011). Preventing over-
scripting effects in computer-supported collaborative learning by adapt-
able scripts. In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake, & N. Law (Eds.),
Connecting computer-supported collaborative learning to policy and
practice: CSCL2011 Conference proceedings volume ILong papers
(pp. 382389). Hong Kong: International Society of the Learning Sci-
ences.
Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2011). From guided to self-regulated perfor-
mance of domain-general skills: The role of peer monitoring during the
fading of instructional scripts. Learning and Instruction, 21, 746756.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.001
Wecker, C., Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Prechtl, H. (2010). Fostering online
search competence and domain-specific knowledge in inquiry classrooms:
effects of continuous and fading collaboration scripts. In K. Gomez, L.
Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the Disciplines: Proceedings of
the 9th International Conference of the Learning SciencesICLS 2010
(Vol. 1; pp. 810817). Chicago, IL: International Society of the Learning
Sciences.
Wecker, C., Stegmann, K., Bernstein, F., Huber, M. J., Kalus, G., Kollar, I.,
& Fischer, F. (2010). S-COL: A Copernican turn for the development of
flexibly reusable collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-
Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 321343. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-
9093-5
Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and
social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional
Science, 33, 130.
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue
online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not).
Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 506515. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.
007
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting
argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning
environments. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.),
Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, compu-
tational, and educational perspectives (pp. 191211). New York, NY:
Springer.